Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The reality is that corporations shouldn't be espousing political viewpoints But they MUST. That’s the issue. There is no such thing as remaining neutral. What could they do? Ban the player to make China happy? Now the west is mad and boycotting. NOT ban the player? Now China is pissed and kicking you out of the country. They were damned by someone either way. There was no neutral political stance they could take.…
>But they MUST. That’s the issue. Then what is the right answer? HK independence? >There is no such thing as remaining neutral. Of course there is! What does it mean to NOT remain neutral? What position should a corporation take and which controversial topics? How about the IOC? Or FIFA? Or some charity? Or the EU? I don't see European nations, for example, taking any steps to challenge China. I don't see the public…
It's a stage where people express themselves.
They are there because they won the competition and earned that position on that stage.
If people couldn't earn that stage and that kind of exposure, they would not play games professionally.
Forcing people to be neutral about politics is not neutral.
> The same thing that NFL and NBA did with players kneeling during the anthem because it pissed off half their fanbase.
They took a stance against a legit position, therefore becoming politically active in the situation, therefore pissing off the black community, the neutral viewers, the minority of already pissed off that expected more radical punishments and in the end they are losers in the game.
There are way more people pissed at NBA/NFL in general than people pissed off by players kneeling.
The only way to be really neutral is support every instance: you want to kneel? it's ok! You don't want to? it's ok!
People are pissed? they would be anyway! It's what they do, they would not be staring a 70 inches TV alone if they had a life!